Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (6) TMI 716

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... properties too. It is argued that the plaint failed to disclose genesis of the joint family fund or any particulars on it. Whether the properties were purchased out of joint family fund or not and the question of jointness of movable and immovable properties are question of fact to be established in trial. It is too early to say at this stage, that the suit does not disclose cause of action. Joint fund is averred in the plaint, as stated above; purchase of properties out of joint fund is also averred, which is sought to be partitioned. The question of existence of nucleus of fund is also a matter of fact to be established in evidence. But at this stage it cannot be said that the suit does not disclose cause of action or barred by Companies .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aichand Lal Pasari. Defendant No. 14 to 18 are the sons and daughters of the deceased daughter of Late Jaichand Lal Pasari since deceased. All are governed by Mitaksara School of Law, it is contended that Late Jaichand Lal Pasari formed several private companies, namely, Defendant No. 19 to 69 for joint family purpose. These properties and businesses are still treated as partnership business of the members of Pasari family. All these businesses as well as the immovable properties were acquired out of joint family fund. Since these properties as well as the companies belong to joint family property and since the Plaintiffs rights are denied, the Plaintiff instituted the suit praying for declaration, partition by metes and bounds and other re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng daughter of Late Jaichand Lal Pasari. It is stated that behind her back the properties were dealt with or without giving a single farthing out of such property or state. It is further stated that thirty companies were incorporated after death of Late Jaichand Lal Pasari which indicates that money were usurped from the estate of Late Jaichand Lal Pasari to incorporate such companies. According to the Plaintiff, the instant application is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Bose the Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant No. 9 argued firstly that there is no pleading of existence of any Hindu Undivided Family of Late Jaichand Lal Pasari or any other Hindu Undivided Family created by Late Jaichand Lal Pasari. It is well-settled that there is n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... principle of companies jurisprudence that the assets of the companies belonged to the joint family. Properties of a company belong to the company itself; a claim of the company s properties as joint family properties offend the basic principle of the companies jurisprudence. Mr. Bose refers to 63 Moon Technologies Ltd. Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [(2019) 18 SCC 401]. Per contra, Mr. Mitra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff argued that while dealing with application under the Order VII Rule 11, the Plaintiff is not called upon to give evidence. Mere existence of pleading is more than enough to sustain the plaint. Bare reading of the plaint clearly discloses that the Plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of a joint fami .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of fact to be established in trial. It is too early to say at this stage, that the suit does not disclose cause of action. Joint fund is averred in the plaint, as stated above; purchase of properties out of joint fund is also averred, which is sought to be partitioned. The question of existence of nucleus of fund is also a matter of fact to be established in evidence. But at this stage it cannot be said that the suit does not disclose cause of action or barred by Companies Act 2013 or Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988. A conclusion at this stage that the suit is barred under the laws, as mentioned above, would be inappropriate. The suit is one for partition. The National Company Law Tribunal has no authority to consider partition sui .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates